Bombay High Court
Mohammed Alam Ansari And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2020
1. Mr.Mohammed Alam Ansari; )
Age : 33 years, Occ- Service )
)
2. Mrs.Rukhsana Aslam Ansari; )
Age : 51 years, Occ-Housewife )
)
3. Mr.Arshad Aslam Ansari; )
Age : 31 years, Occ-Service )
)
4. Mr.Rizwan Aslam Ansari; )
Age : 30 years, Occ-Service )
All residing a 24/166, Nizamuddin )
Building, Pipe Road, Kurla (West), )
Mumbai-400070 ).. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra through )
Sr.Inspector of Police, MIDC Police )
Station, )
)
2. Sabiya Mohammed Alam Ansari )
Aged : 30 Years, Occ-Nil, )
Residing at Room No.981, Sagbag )
Chawl, Near BMC School, Marol, )
Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 059 ) .. Respondents
...
Mr.Abdul Rab Shaikh for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.Salim Shaikh for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in Court.
Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 00:27:10 :::
2/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 09th FEBRUARY, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S.SHINDE,J]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. Pursuant to the notices issued, respondent No.2 has caused
appearance through her counsel and filed the affidavit. It is
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
respondent No.2 that parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the said settlement,
impugned FIR and charge-sheet be quashed.
3. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court. She stated that
it is her voluntary act to enter into settlement and file affidavit
before this Court. She stated that she has no objection for quashing
the impugned FIR and charge-sheet.
4. Para Nos.2 to 6 of the affidavit of respondent No.2 read as
under :
"2. I say that till the period of matrimonial life we both tried
our level best to continue with our marriage, however, due
to the differences in our temperaments our relations went
strained. I say that I lodged an FIR bearing no.204 at MIDC
Police Station dated 16.05.2017 under sections 498(A), 323,
504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
petitioners in the present petition which is now pending
before the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 22 nd
Court, Andheri, Mumbai vide C.C.No.2241/PW/2017.
3. I say that I had also filed an application u/s. 12 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the same is pending before the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate's 51st Court at Kurla, Mumbai
bearing no. 175/DV/2017 and the same is withdrawn on
settlement. I further say and submit that the petitioner no.4
has filed an application against me which is pending before
the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate's 51st Court at Kurla, Mumbai
bearing no.787/misc/2019.
4. I say that after the intervention of the respected persons,
the dispute between myself and the petitioners are
completely resolved and settled on the condition that the
petitioner no.1 shall pay to me and my child a lumpsum
maintenance of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty
Thousand Only) which is agreed upon by me and the
petitioners herein. The said amount of lumpsum and full
and final maintenance is partly paid in the following
manner :
(a) Demand Draft of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) at the time of executing consent terms and divorce by
khula. Accordingly I have received the Demand Draft of
Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.03.2020 and a Consent Declaration and
Khulanama Divorce is signed and executed amongst myself
and petitioner no.1.
(b) The petitioner no.1 has hand over to me the
second demand draft of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) at the time of withdrawal of my application under the
Domestic Violence Act by me.
(c) The petitioner no.1 will hand over to me the last
demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) at
the time of quashing of FIR registered by me and upon my
consent to quash the same.
5. I say that the petitioner no.4 has undertaken to withdraw
the complaint filed by him against me as mentioned above. I
say that the dispute between myself and the petitioners have
been completely settled and resolved and there is nothing
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
more due or payable by and between me and the petitioners.
Further as the dispute is completely and amicably settled, I
have no grievance against the petitioners. I have no
objection if the prayers of the petitioners are granted and the
criminal proceedings quashed.
6. I say that I have no objection and extend my
unconditional consent for grant of the prayers of the
petitioners and in view of our complete settlement of
matrimonial dispute this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash
and set aside the criminal case bearing
C.C.No.2241/PW/2017 emanating out of FIR No.204 of
2017 registered on 16.05.2017 at the MIDC Police Station
now pending before the file of Learned Metropolitan
Magistrates 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai."
5. It is stated by respondent No.2 that she has received the entire
amount i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- from petitioner No.1. Since the parties
have amicably settled the dispute, no purpose will be served by
continuing the further proceedings arising out of Crime No.204 of
2017 registered on 16th May, 2017 at MIDC Police Station, under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court.
7. Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably
settled the dispute, we are inclined to allow this petition as
respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations in the
impugned FIR and chance of conviction of the petitioners would be
bleak, and therefore, continuation of further further proceedings,
would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of
process of the Court.
8. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the petition deserves
to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as under :
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate
writ order, direction or any other appropriate order thereby
quashing and setting aside Criminal Case No.2241/PW/2017
pending before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate's 22 nd Court at
Andheri, Mumbai arising out of the impugned FIR No.204 of
2017 filed at MIDC Police Station u/s.498(a), 323, 504 and 34
of IPC holding the same liable to be quashed and set aside in
view of settlement between the parties and in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience;"
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/6 Judgment WP-1462-20.doc
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition sands
disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
